9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (8) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of clearance through Customs: value * * * * * This licence is granted under the Govt. of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Order No. 17/55 dated the 7th December, issued under Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, (XVIII of 1947) and is without prejudice to the application of any other prohibition or regulation affecting the importation of the goods which may be in force at the time of their arrival. On the basis of the aforesaid licence, the petitioner company placed the following order with Messrs. Carver Cotton Gin Company of America, through their Indian agents : Re. Our Order for Delinting plant, placed with Messrs. Patel Brothers, Delhi, dated 30th May, 1960. With reference to the above as desired by your representative Messrs. Patel Brothers, Delhi, we give below the full particulars of the equipments that you would ship against our order and request you to confirm the same : S. No. Quantity Description Price each in USA% Total 1 Four Carver Model P-4-5 Dual Motor 176 Saw Linters. No Condensers. Duplex Saw Cylinder, Motor Supports and V B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esentatives of the exporter company, was also searched by the Officers of the Bombay Customs and certain other documents were seized from the custody of the said Patel Brothers. 6. Thereafter, early in February 1962, the petitioner company as also Messrs. Patel Brothers were served with two separate notices, in which it was stated as follows : "Scrutiny of the seized documents revealed that (i) the Import Licence No. 553779/60/Bom. dated 3-3-1960 was issued for '3-120 Less one Saw Gin Plant, Four Cotton Seed Delinting Machines with accessories (ii) that the invoice and other documents which were produced before the Customs authorities for the clearance of the goods showed that only four Delinting machines were imported together with accessories and spares (iii) that actually M/s. Shree Bhawani Cotton Mills Ltd., had placed order on Messrs. Carver Cotton Gin Co. of U.S.A. for six Delinting machines and that the indent as above was accepted by M/s. Carver Cotton Gin Co. on 10-6-1960 (iv) that M/s. Patel Bros. the indenting agents instructed M/s. Carver Cotton Gin Co. to send the additional two Delinters on completely knocked down condition and to invoice them as spares, so that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Additional Collector of Customs. The petitioner company makes the grievance that said Mr. Singhi was not allowed to make any submission, on the ground that the name of P.D. Himatsingka Co. did not stand recorded in the Customs file as representing the petitioner company in their professional capacity as solicitors. The Additional Collector of Customs considered the materials placed before him and came to the following conclusion : "In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as determined from the statement of Shri A.V. Patankar, the aforesaid correspondence of which copy was supplied to the said Cotton Mills and the explanation dated 5-3-1962 of the said Mills, I hold that the allegation referred to in paragraph I hereof are established, and that the said Mills are a person concerned in the importation without an Import Trade Control Licence valid for the purpose, and therefore in contravention of restrictions imposed under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act as read with Section 3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (as amended) of 2 Delinters worth about Rs. 36,762 /- c.i.f. in excess of four permitted to be imported under the Import Trade Contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r over the same and the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction. 11. Mr. B.C. Deb, learned advocate for the petitioner company, contended, in the first place, that there had been a violation of the principles of natural justice in not allowing Mr. D. Singhi, Solicitor, to argue the case on behalf of the petitioner company. It is not the case of the petitioner company that none of the representatives of the company was heard by the Additional Collector of Customs. Mr. Tibrewal, who was also representing the petitioner company, was not denied opportunities of being heard. The grievance made was that the solicitor engaged by the petitioner company to make submission on facts and law was not allowed to argue. The allegation in this respect is somewhat lacking in particulars. All that is stated in paragraph 12 of the petition is : The said Sri D. Singhi was instructed by your petitioner as lawyer to make submissions on facts and on law before the adjudicating officer. The said Sri Singhi was, however, not allowed by the said officer to make any submission on the ground that the name of Messrs. P.D. Himatsingka Co, was not recorded on Customs files as your petitioner's sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2, Art. 10 of the Court Fees Act provides as follows : Mukhtarnama or Vakalatnama When presented for the conduct of any one case (a) * * * (b) to a Commissioner of Revenue Circuit, or Customs or to any officer charged with the executive administration of a Division, not being the Chief Revenue or Executive Authority One rupee 14. Mr. R.C. Deb, however, contended that a pleader, an advocate or a solicitor may file a vakalatnama before a Customs authority and if he does, then that document must bear a Court Fee stamp of Re. 1/-. He, however, argued that it was not obligatory for a lawyer to file a Vakalatnama before an administrative tribunal, like a Customs Adju dicator, in the absence of any provision as in Order III, rule 4 of the Code of Procedure, which was applicable only in respect of appointment of pleaders, before a Court of law. 15. Mr. A.C. Mitter, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, does not dispute the proposition that a lawyer duly authorised may represent a party before the Customs Authorities without filing a vakalatnama, but some sort of an authorisation must be there in order to satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eamers dies and teps, gear cutters and hacksaw blades : Provided that articles which do not satisfy this condition shall also be deemed to be component parts of the machine to which they belong if they are essential to its operation and are imported with it is such quantities as may appear to the Collector of Customs to be reasonable". Ad valorem duty payable on component parts is now 20 per cent. 19. Component parts are therefore not the machine itself but only such parts thereof as are essential for the working of the machine. 20. In Websters New Twentieth Century Dictionary one of the meanings ascribed to the word 'accessory' is : "A non-essential device added to a principal body for effective ness or convenience; as a speedometer in an automobile". 21. In Murray's New English dictionary an accessory is said to be something contributing in a subordinate degree to a general result or effect; an adjunct, or accompaniment." 22. In an old English case decided as far back as 1897 the Court of Appeal consisting of Lord Esher, M.R., Lopes and Chitty, L. JJ. had to consider the question whether duplicate parts of a gun were accessories' or 'stores'. Their lordships expresse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assembling of a machine in the country of its origin. If the parts are capable of being made into a whole, then whether they are so made in the country of their origin or in the country where they are imported makes little difference. 26. Mr. Deb further argued that the 4 machines and the accessories imported therewith did not exceed the limit of the value permitted by the licence and, therefore, the petitioner company should not be deemed to have offended against the provisions of the licence. In my opinion, there is no substance in this argument. The value of the goods was not the only limitation placed under the licence; the petitioner company was not permitted to import anything else but the permitted number and type of machine and its accessories under the licence. Since the petitioner company imported more machines than the licence permitted, the fact that it kept within the monetary limits of the licence did not absolve itself. 27. It was lastly argued by Mr. Deb that the goods passed out of the Customs barrier and thereafter the Customs authorities could not pursue the goods and impose penalty upon the petitioner. This point has already been dealt with by Sinha, J in m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
